Riverside County GOP registration surge raises questions of fraud
Source: LA Times
At least 133 residents of a state Senate district there have filed formal complaints with the state, saying they were added to GOP rolls without their knowledge.
...
More than 27,700 residents of the legislative district have become Republicans since January, according to the California secretary of state's office erasing a registration edge long held by Democrats.
...
The problem has also raised anew the question of whether the state should ban firms that pay workers for each voter they register or signature they secure on a petition rather than paying them an hourly rate. Workers have an incentive to cut corners under such arrangements, according to Assemblyman Richard Pan (D-Natomas), who has proposed barring the practice in a bill that is on the governor's desk.
...
Many of those who were registered said they signed documents they thought were petitions for ballot measures to legalize marijuana or create jobs in California. Reyes said she was told that for her signature to be counted she would also have to fill out a registration form.
She did so, without checking a box for a political party because she was already registered as a Democrat. She was surprised to receive a notice in the mail later saying she had been registered as a Republican.
"It's really disturbing," said the 20-year-old criminal justice major, who has since re-registered as a Democrat.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-riverside-voters-20120930,0,7018210.story
Voter fraud certainly is prevalent just like the GOP says.
And they should know because they are behind all of it.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)county to county but in Jackson County, Missouri there is not even a block on the voter registration application form that asks for party affiliation information.
DWinNJ
(261 posts)1) It doesnt affect who you can vote for in the general election
2) You are less likely to have some clown try to have you knocked off the voter rolls
3) People dont generally know how you are registered so you dont have to be embarrassed
tblue37
(65,225 posts)point to the "fact" that the voting district is heavily Republican--at least according to the party most voters are registered for.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)And if they also put your address wrong you can not vote.
They do that.
allan01
(1,950 posts)all i can say is , BUSTED.
SunSeeker
(51,512 posts)If just one of the teavangelical churches that are all over Riverside got their entire flock to register to vote, that could produce 20,000 registrants right there. I'm surprised Dems had a registration edge in Riverside. However, Riverside has got to be getting close to majority latino it it isn't already. If we could just get all those folks registered, the Dems would easily have the registration edge. I've never understood why the Catholic churches in Southern California don't push their parishioners to vote like the teavangelical churches do. Especially since it is pretty clear no one is going after churches' tax exempt status for politicking. Exhibit A: the Mormon church and Prop. 8.
msongs
(67,360 posts)fearnobush
(3,960 posts)In 2004. Meanwhile, many born again church's displayed man sized car board cut outs of their Bush deity during in house registration drives with entire precincts showing 100% voter turnout, all republican votes.
progree
(10,890 posts)So a church may speak out for civil rights (e.g. black churches) or for or against gay marriage or socialism or deficit spending or free birth control pills or any other generic issue. But not for or against any candidate or political party.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/good-question-are-churches-allowed-to-say-vote-yes-or-vote-no/
SunSeeker
(51,512 posts)progree
(10,890 posts)or in violation of any IRS regulations.
I don't doubt that there are many blatant examples of churches / preachers advocating for or against a specific candidate which is illegal. And yes, there's very little enforcement. And yes, your Exhibit B is an example of illegal politicing.
SunSeeker
(51,512 posts)the separation of Church and State. Here's a scholarly article that says it much more eloquently than I can.
http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/87/307
And I get your point and I agree with you.
progree
(10,890 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)
with tax-exempt status to advocate for or against any political cause.
Yes, this is off-topic relative to the OP. I'm just alerting fellow DUers, that, according to IRS regulation and case law, churches may advocate for political causes, as long as they don't advocate for candidates or political parties.
If a church can't advocate for or against gay marriage, then what cause can they advocate for or against? I just don't see anything anywhere that laws defining marriage are somehow causes that churches may not advocate for or against, but that they can advocate for or against other causes without violating church-state separation.
Do you think the Minnesota Council For Nonprofits is wrong? http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/good-question-are-churches-allowed-to-say-vote-yes-or-vote-no/
These really are some of the big issues in society, the fact that institutions have an opinion is not surprising, and, in fact, its entirely allowed, said Susie Brown, public policy director at Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. The council helps educate and train nonprofits about the laws that would govern their tax-exempt status.
... The IRS allows churches to preach on the issues of the day, and theyre allowed to lobby on behalf of issues as well. They can puts signs up on church grounds and preach from the pulpit, without jeopardizing their nonprofit status.
Institutions in the community, whether churches or nonprofits, have principles and values and a vision, and talking about policy positions in a way thats aligned with that makes good sense, Brown said.
So churches cannot post a Vote for Obama or Vote For Romney sign, but Vote Yes and Vote No signs are perfectly OK.
I may not like it, you may not like it, but it is not illegal at present. Some would argue that black churches were politicing advocating for civil rights and against voter photo ID and other modern-day Jim Crow laws are violating separation of church and state, and they may be right, but under current law it is not illegal. I was in a black church in an anti-voter-photo-ID presentation and rally about 3 weeks ago.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)daybranch
(1,309 posts)What is? being registered as a member of a party you do not belong to? You do not have to sign a new registration form to sign petitions to my knowledge, so what do you mean??
Petition and referendum is a great progressive mechanism and is critical in giving the country back to the people.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)]Many of those who were registered said they signed documents they thought were petitions for ballot measures to legalize marijuana or create jobs in California.
THIS is what I was talking about.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)progree
(10,890 posts)The RepubliCONs are talking about all kinds of voter fraud and registration fraud (if they make the distinction from "voter fraud" and then offer as a cure the mandatory voter photo ID. But the photo ID solves only one problem -- voter impersonation -- pretending to be another voter.
Where I vote, Minnesota, I declare my name and address and then I sign the voter roll right next to my name and address. If someone else came before or after me claiming to be me, there would be an obvious something wrong (whoever came later is claiming to be somebody who has already signed in on that name/address). But this NEVER happens as that would lead to prosecution of somebody but nobody has been prosecuted for voter impersonation in Minnesota. Never ever.